State Pot Laws Usurping the Fed Means Abortion Is Next...

Right's are somewhat "flippant" in this nation because of Federal overreach [admittedly my opinion.] To example, nearly 40 years ago, the Alaska supreme court ruled that an adult’s right to use and possess a small amount of pot for personal use was protected under the Alaska constitution’s right to privacy. The Feds came in and told us that /our/ courts opinion of what was a "right" was meaningless to them. Then they applied the thumbscrews and extorted us to change the Alaska Constitution (which ratified personal privacy in owning small amounts of pot.)


So sure, abortion and marriage are considered "rights" by the supreme courts rulings at the moment, but that doesn't mean those /opinions/ won't change. It also means that abortion and marriage are merely "legal rights."

They may change. But the court rarely withdrawals rights. It usually expands them. And In Predicting legal outcomees, the only reliable predictive indicators are the the law, case law and court rulings that do exist.

Not may exist.
 
Show me where in the constitution it says that laws are the basis of rights.

Afraid?

Show me where in the Constitution Abortion and Marriage are rights.

Show me where in the constitution it says that something has to be in the constitution to be a right. Read the 9th amendment before you do.

The 9th amendment says nothing about how they become rights. It can be interpreted as allowing State Constitutions to enumerate their own rights, not that some court can just whip them out of thin air and force everyone to agree to them.

To be a PROTECTED right, it should be in the Constitution, otherwise we trust them to the whims of 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers.

You may take comfort in that, to me it's a terrible situation.

What you think 'should be in the constitution' is irrelevant to a discussion of likely legal outcomes. What *is* in the constitution is relevant. The court cases and case law surrounding it are relevant. The law is relevant.

As the constitution, court cases, case law and statutory law are predictive of legal outcomes. And your insistence on what 'should' be isn't.

Blah blah blah, law, blah blah blah, no read debate on the topic.

I’m discussing the topic of the thread. You’re trying change the conversation to your typical droning “but my personal opinion trumps the Supreme Court” shtick.

I’ll stick with the thread topic, thanks. As your personal opinion means jack shit in predicting actual legal outcomes.
 
Right's are somewhat "flippant" in this nation because of Federal overreach [admittedly my opinion.] To example, nearly 40 years ago, the Alaska supreme court ruled that an adult’s right to use and possess a small amount of pot for personal use was protected under the Alaska constitution’s right to privacy. The Feds came in and told us that /our/ courts opinion of what was a "right" was meaningless to them. Then they applied the thumbscrews and extorted us to change the Alaska Constitution (which ratified personal privacy in owning small amounts of pot.)


So sure, abortion and marriage are considered "rights" by the supreme courts rulings at the moment, but that doesn't mean those /opinions/ won't change. It also means that abortion and marriage are merely "legal rights."

Recriminalization of pot in Alaska occurred because the voters of Alaska voted for it - not because of "the feds".
 
Right's are somewhat "flippant" in this nation because of Federal overreach [admittedly my opinion.] To example, nearly 40 years ago, the Alaska supreme court ruled that an adult’s right to use and possess a small amount of pot for personal use was protected under the Alaska constitution’s right to privacy. The Feds came in and told us that /our/ courts opinion of what was a "right" was meaningless to them. Then they applied the thumbscrews and extorted us to change the Alaska Constitution (which ratified personal privacy in owning small amounts of pot.)


So sure, abortion and marriage are considered "rights" by the supreme courts rulings at the moment, but that doesn't mean those /opinions/ won't change. It also means that abortion and marriage are merely "legal rights."

They may change. But the court rarely withdrawals rights. It usually expands them. And In Predicting legal outcomees, the only reliable predictive indicators are the the law, case law and court rulings that do exist.

Not may exist.

That might be, but the end result is that your implication that abortion and ssm are "rights" in the same context that gun ownership is a right is a bit flawed. They are presently "legal" rights, but they can be made "not rights" at any point in time - it all depends on who's sitting in the top bench seats frankly.

It's actually "safer" or "better" to have /states/ decide "legal" rights than Feds, because if you haven't noticed DC is a "shithole" and don't give a flying rats ass about anyone, they only care about getting your vote - by any lie, deception, or bullshit necessary. A state politician can't get away with that as easily because residents naturally pay attention to their local politics more than national.

It's exactly why Dem's put abortion and SSM in Fed hands, to supersede the /actual/ votes of individuals in states who were against it - they used big city liberal's numbers against what people /actually/ wanted to be acceptable in their communities. While I'm pro-choice, for legalization, AND an SSM supporter, I fully recognize that putting it in the hands of the Fed is wrong on principle. It actually goes against my beliefs on the "right course" for SSM, "grassroots" movements on the local level to foster acceptance of SSM is a far, far more effective tool than ramming it down the unwilling throats of millions was, or ever will be. Now you have backlash from those folks who feel that /their/ opinions and beliefs mean nothing to the politicians and DC in general. They vote accordingly and will likely now be pushing to have SSM /criminalized/. Same thing goes with pot legalization frankly, before it was individual states deciding on their own if it should be legal or not, then the Feds came in and /forced/ it against the will of (what I do believe is the majority) of the nation's actual wishes for decriminalization.

Feds suck at damn near everything they touch, that's all there is to it, giving them power to pick and chose our "legal rights" like abortion, SSM, and pot is fucking stupid.
 
Right's are somewhat "flippant" in this nation because of Federal overreach [admittedly my opinion.] To example, nearly 40 years ago, the Alaska supreme court ruled that an adult’s right to use and possess a small amount of pot for personal use was protected under the Alaska constitution’s right to privacy. The Feds came in and told us that /our/ courts opinion of what was a "right" was meaningless to them. Then they applied the thumbscrews and extorted us to change the Alaska Constitution (which ratified personal privacy in owning small amounts of pot.)


So sure, abortion and marriage are considered "rights" by the supreme courts rulings at the moment, but that doesn't mean those /opinions/ won't change. It also means that abortion and marriage are merely "legal rights."

Recriminalization of pot in Alaska occurred because the voters of Alaska voted for it - not because of "the feds".

Yeah because the Feds extorted us dude. We had to make a choice as a state, figure out how to fund all the fucking snow removal [aka pay out of our pockets for snow removal and paving] or make pot illegal. This isn't the lower 48, if our roads don't get plowed, we legit can't leave our houses so it's not like it's something we can go without. Basically folks voted with their pocketbooks, against. We also just legalized it again, by vote, massively.

Alaskan's by and large didn't /want/ to criminalize it the first time, the Feds /forced/ us to vote "their way" on it while "claiming" it was what we wanted. (See my last post) That's yet another major problem with the Feds deciding our "legal rights" for us.
 
Right's are somewhat "flippant" in this nation because of Federal overreach [admittedly my opinion.] To example, nearly 40 years ago, the Alaska supreme court ruled that an adult’s right to use and possess a small amount of pot for personal use was protected under the Alaska constitution’s right to privacy. The Feds came in and told us that /our/ courts opinion of what was a "right" was meaningless to them. Then they applied the thumbscrews and extorted us to change the Alaska Constitution (which ratified personal privacy in owning small amounts of pot.)


So sure, abortion and marriage are considered "rights" by the supreme courts rulings at the moment, but that doesn't mean those /opinions/ won't change. It also means that abortion and marriage are merely "legal rights."

Recriminalization of pot in Alaska occurred because the voters of Alaska voted for it - not because of "the feds".

Yeah because the Feds extorted us dude. We had to make a choice as a state, figure out how to fund all the fucking snow removal [aka pay out of our pockets for snow removal and paving] or make pot illegal. This isn't the lower 48, if our roads don't get plowed, we legit can't leave our houses so it's not like it's something we can go without. Basically folks voted with their pocketbooks, against. We also just legalized it again, by vote, massively.

Alaskan's by and large didn't /want/ to criminalize it the first time, the Feds /forced/ us to vote "their way" on it while "claiming" it was what we wanted. (See my last post) That's yet another major problem with the Feds deciding our "legal rights" for us.

Ravin v. State was in 1982. Recriminalization occurred by voter referendum in 1990.

Are you claiming that the Federal government forced or coerced 54% of Alaskans to vote to recriminalize?
 
Right's are somewhat "flippant" in this nation because of Federal overreach [admittedly my opinion.] To example, nearly 40 years ago, the Alaska supreme court ruled that an adult’s right to use and possess a small amount of pot for personal use was protected under the Alaska constitution’s right to privacy. The Feds came in and told us that /our/ courts opinion of what was a "right" was meaningless to them. Then they applied the thumbscrews and extorted us to change the Alaska Constitution (which ratified personal privacy in owning small amounts of pot.)


So sure, abortion and marriage are considered "rights" by the supreme courts rulings at the moment, but that doesn't mean those /opinions/ won't change. It also means that abortion and marriage are merely "legal rights."

They may change. But the court rarely withdrawals rights. It usually expands them. And In Predicting legal outcomees, the only reliable predictive indicators are the the law, case law and court rulings that do exist.

Not may exist.

That might be, but the end result is that your implication that abortion and ssm are "rights" in the same context that gun ownership is a right is a bit flawed. They are presently "legal" rights, but they can be made "not rights" at any point in time - it all depends on who's sitting in the top bench seats frankly.

It's actually "safer" or "better" to have /states/ decide "legal" rights than Feds, because if you haven't noticed DC is a "shithole" and don't give a flying rats ass about anyone, they only care about getting your vote - by any lie, deception, or bullshit necessary. A state politician can't get away with that as easily because residents naturally pay attention to their local politics more than national.

It's exactly why Dem's put abortion and SSM in Fed hands, to supersede the /actual/ votes of individuals in states who were against it - they used big city liberal's numbers against what people /actually/ wanted to be acceptable in their communities. While I'm pro-choice, for legalization, AND an SSM supporter, I fully recognize that putting it in the hands of the Fed is wrong on principle. It actually goes against my beliefs on the "right course" for SSM, "grassroots" movements on the local level to foster acceptance of SSM is a far, far more effective tool than ramming it down the unwilling throats of millions was, or ever will be. Now you have backlash from those folks who feel that /their/ opinions and beliefs mean nothing to the politicians and DC in general. They vote accordingly and will likely now be pushing to have SSM /criminalized/. Same thing goes with pot legalization frankly, before it was individual states deciding on their own if it should be legal or not, then the Feds came in and /forced/ it against the will of (what I do believe is the majority) of the nation's actual wishes for decriminalization.

Feds suck at damn near everything they touch, that's all there is to it, giving them power to pick and chose our "legal rights" like abortion, SSM, and pot is fucking stupid.

It’s possible......but improbable. The court overwhelmingly moves iteratively and in line with existing precedent. It also overwhelmingly favors the expanding of rights over their restriction. I can’t think of the last time a constitutionally recognized right was rescinded.

So while its possible, it’s highly improbable. The slippery slope is likewise, highly improbable.
 
Right back to running behind the Robes of unelected lawyers.

Are your beliefs so fragile that you can't get away from appeals to authority as an answer to my every question?

Again, we're discussing actual legal outcomes.

The conflict between the States and the Federal Government on pot laws have nothing to do with abortion or same sex marriage as the legal basis for each is vastly different. The former is about powers of respective government. The latter, the rights of individuals. A conflict between state and federal governments regarding their powers creates no slippery slope for rights of individuals. As Rights of Individuals trump both the federal and state government's laws.

Thus, there is no slippery slope.

It all boils down to a disrespect for the Constitution. People who make up rights can just as easily make up reasons to get rid of them.

You don't care because you are ignorant and short sighted.
It all boils down to a lack of a slippery slope. As rights and powers are completely different legal bases.

And I don’t care about your personal opinion in a discussion about predicting legal outcomes. As your personal opinion predicts nothing.

Then why did you just waste 6 pages saying the same thing over and over and not answering my questions?
 
Show me where in the Constitution Abortion and Marriage are rights.

Show me where in the constitution it says that something has to be in the constitution to be a right. Read the 9th amendment before you do.

The 9th amendment says nothing about how they become rights. It can be interpreted as allowing State Constitutions to enumerate their own rights, not that some court can just whip them out of thin air and force everyone to agree to them.

To be a PROTECTED right, it should be in the Constitution, otherwise we trust them to the whims of 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers.

You may take comfort in that, to me it's a terrible situation.

What you think 'should be in the constitution' is irrelevant to a discussion of likely legal outcomes. What *is* in the constitution is relevant. The court cases and case law surrounding it are relevant. The law is relevant.

As the constitution, court cases, case law and statutory law are predictive of legal outcomes. And your insistence on what 'should' be isn't.

Blah blah blah, law, blah blah blah, no read debate on the topic.

I’m discussing the topic of the thread. You’re trying change the conversation to your typical droning “but my personal opinion trumps the Supreme Court” shtick.

I’ll stick with the thread topic, thanks. As your personal opinion means jack shit in predicting actual legal outcomes.

Then stop responding, or answer the freaking questions.
 
Show me where in the constitution it says that something has to be in the constitution to be a right. Read the 9th amendment before you do.

The 9th amendment says nothing about how they become rights. It can be interpreted as allowing State Constitutions to enumerate their own rights, not that some court can just whip them out of thin air and force everyone to agree to them.

To be a PROTECTED right, it should be in the Constitution, otherwise we trust them to the whims of 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers.

You may take comfort in that, to me it's a terrible situation.

What you think 'should be in the constitution' is irrelevant to a discussion of likely legal outcomes. What *is* in the constitution is relevant. The court cases and case law surrounding it are relevant. The law is relevant.

As the constitution, court cases, case law and statutory law are predictive of legal outcomes. And your insistence on what 'should' be isn't.

Blah blah blah, law, blah blah blah, no read debate on the topic.

I’m discussing the topic of the thread. You’re trying change the conversation to your typical droning “but my personal opinion trumps the Supreme Court” shtick.

I’ll stick with the thread topic, thanks. As your personal opinion means jack shit in predicting actual legal outcomes.

Then stop responding, or answer the freaking questions.

I am responding.....to the topic of the thread.

One you keep running from as if it were on fire.
 
Right back to running behind the Robes of unelected lawyers.

Are your beliefs so fragile that you can't get away from appeals to authority as an answer to my every question?

Again, we're discussing actual legal outcomes.

The conflict between the States and the Federal Government on pot laws have nothing to do with abortion or same sex marriage as the legal basis for each is vastly different. The former is about powers of respective government. The latter, the rights of individuals. A conflict between state and federal governments regarding their powers creates no slippery slope for rights of individuals. As Rights of Individuals trump both the federal and state government's laws.

Thus, there is no slippery slope.

It all boils down to a disrespect for the Constitution. People who make up rights can just as easily make up reasons to get rid of them.

You don't care because you are ignorant and short sighted.
It all boils down to a lack of a slippery slope. As rights and powers are completely different legal bases.

And I don’t care about your personal opinion in a discussion about predicting legal outcomes. As your personal opinion predicts nothing.

Then why did you just waste 6 pages saying the same thing over and over and not answering my questions?

I'm discussing the topic of the thread: the slippery slope pertaining to pot laws and abortion or marriage. There is none. As they have completely different bases.

Just because you ignored the topic of the thread doesn't mean we're obligated to do the same.
 
If states get away with disregarding federal law and continue to legalize pot at the state level, state legislatures can then arrest abortion providers if they enact state laws prohibiting abortion. The Fed be damned.
Pothead lefties better watch out for what they wish for.


yeah there are a lot of federal laws a state could write off the books

that being one

federal taxes being another
 
Right's are somewhat "flippant" in this nation because of Federal overreach [admittedly my opinion.] To example, nearly 40 years ago, the Alaska supreme court ruled that an adult’s right to use and possess a small amount of pot for personal use was protected under the Alaska constitution’s right to privacy. The Feds came in and told us that /our/ courts opinion of what was a "right" was meaningless to them. Then they applied the thumbscrews and extorted us to change the Alaska Constitution (which ratified personal privacy in owning small amounts of pot.)


So sure, abortion and marriage are considered "rights" by the supreme courts rulings at the moment, but that doesn't mean those /opinions/ won't change. It also means that abortion and marriage are merely "legal rights."

Recriminalization of pot in Alaska occurred because the voters of Alaska voted for it - not because of "the feds".

Yeah because the Feds extorted us dude. We had to make a choice as a state, figure out how to fund all the fucking snow removal [aka pay out of our pockets for snow removal and paving] or make pot illegal. This isn't the lower 48, if our roads don't get plowed, we legit can't leave our houses so it's not like it's something we can go without. Basically folks voted with their pocketbooks, against. We also just legalized it again, by vote, massively.

Alaskan's by and large didn't /want/ to criminalize it the first time, the Feds /forced/ us to vote "their way" on it while "claiming" it was what we wanted. (See my last post) That's yet another major problem with the Feds deciding our "legal rights" for us.

Ravin v. State was in 1982. Recriminalization occurred by voter referendum in 1990.

Are you claiming that the Federal government forced or coerced 54% of Alaskans to vote to recriminalize?

Ravin vs State was in 1975 dude... And there was /more/ before that ruling.

The first Alaska Supreme Court decision interpreting the privacy clause of the Alaska Constitution, added by voter initiative in 1972, upheld the constitutional right of individuals to use marijuana in their homes. Justice Rabinowitz, writing for the court, stated that residents of Alaska "have a basic right to privacy in their homes under Alaska’s Constitution” and that "would encompass the possession and ingestion of substances such as marijuana in a purely personal, non-commercial
context..."

Then we had Ravin in 1975: “[W]e conclude that citizens of the State of Alaska have a basic right to privacy in their homes under Alaska’s constitution,” the Court ruled in Ravin. “This right to privacy would encompass the possession and ingestion of substances such as marijuana in a purely personal, non-commercial context in the home unless the state can meet its substantial burden and show that proscription of possession of marijuana in the home is supportable by achievement of a legitimate state interest.”

Then we had a "revisit" of a sort; Noy vs State in 2003, where the court of appeals ruled yet again in favor of personal possession, ruling:

"To make AS 11.71.060(a)(1) consistent with article I, section 22 of the Alaska Constitution as interpreted in Ravin, we must limit the scope of the statute.   As currently written, the statute prohibits possession of any amount of marijuana.   But with regard to possession of marijuana by adults in their home for personal use, AS 11.71.060(a)(1) must be interpreted to prohibit only the possession of four ounces or more of marijuana."

And of course in 2014 we immediately decriminalized, by vote.

You seem to be under the impression that the Feds making it criminal is a magical wand or something... It ain't. It has /always/ been legal to have and smoke pot in our homes up here, from time immemorial, and the Feds be fucking damned... Folks up here never stopped smoking weed even after the feds made us criminalize in 1992. Sure, the /feds/ came up here occasionally to "enforce" their bullshit, but Alaska police only arrested sellers and growers, gang members, and that kind of stuff. Folks smoking a little pot in their houses were left alone even when found, unless there was another crime committed (then they might tack that on just to get the criminals off the streets longer.) NO ONE in Alaska has /ever/ been convicted of possession of small amounts of pot inside their own home - because that's legal up here, always has been, always will be.

Do you know who the pot smokers in Alaska are? A lot of them are older vets who use it to get over their pain and trauma. That's a big part of why we voted to decriminalize, not because of liberal ideals of stopping systemic racism, or because we're a bunch of pot heads, but because our soldiers wanted it. We owe them our lives... the whole fucking world does. They want to get stoned off a natural product, who the fuck are we to say no to them? To tell them /we/ know better what /they/ find helps them? They've served in Nazi Germany, in Japan, and the Middle East, they've faced guns, tanks, and bombs, and yet we think we're "protecting them" by criminalizing their pot? Give me a fucking break...

Life isn't so black and white as many folks like to think. This is why I say that folks outside the city/state are clueless and shouldn't be using Fed law to enforce their bullshit. I've lived here my entire life so I have a hell of a lot better idea what's good for my state than some yahoo in DC (or any other state) who's never set foot up here. I know better for my state than some idiot who's "visited" and went on a tour to Denali... Cities and states should be deciding on this kind of "rights", not distant Feds, not career politicians in Washington looking for votes, not even the crazy ass 9th circuit (though they'd likely defend pot, they could fuck up a wet dream on damn near everything else.)


Bonus Fact for everyone: Do you actually know the history of why the Feds made pot illegal? I almost hate to say it with the way liberals have behaved this past couple years, but they're actually right this time, it's a legit racist law that's stayed on the books somehow all these years. It was created to demonize and stem the flow of Mexican immigrants, no joke.
 
If states get away with disregarding federal law and continue to legalize pot at the state level, state legislatures can then arrest abortion providers if they enact state laws prohibiting abortion. The Fed be damned.
Pothead lefties better watch out for what they wish for.

News flash- the legalization, or decriminalization of pot crosses party lines.
Poll: Growing number of Americans support marijuana legalization, including Republicans
A record high number of respondents to a Gallup poll released Wednesday said they support the legalization of marijuana, including more than half of Republicans polled.
 
Right's are somewhat "flippant" in this nation because of Federal overreach [admittedly my opinion.] To example, nearly 40 years ago, the Alaska supreme court ruled that an adult’s right to use and possess a small amount of pot for personal use was protected under the Alaska constitution’s right to privacy. The Feds came in and told us that /our/ courts opinion of what was a "right" was meaningless to them. Then they applied the thumbscrews and extorted us to change the Alaska Constitution (which ratified personal privacy in owning small amounts of pot.)


So sure, abortion and marriage are considered "rights" by the supreme courts rulings at the moment, but that doesn't mean those /opinions/ won't change. It also means that abortion and marriage are merely "legal rights."

They may change. But the court rarely withdrawals rights. It usually expands them. And In Predicting legal outcomees, the only reliable predictive indicators are the the law, case law and court rulings that do exist.

Not may exist.

That might be, but the end result is that your implication that abortion and ssm are "rights" in the same context that gun ownership is a right is a bit flawed. They are presently "legal" rights, but they can be made "not rights" at any point in time - it all depends on who's sitting in the top bench seats frankly.

It's actually "safer" or "better" to have /states/ decide "legal" rights than Feds, because if you haven't noticed DC is a "shithole" and don't give a flying rats ass about anyone, they only care about getting your vote - by any lie, deception, or bullshit necessary. A state politician can't get away with that as easily because residents naturally pay attention to their local politics more than national.

It's exactly why Dem's put abortion and SSM in Fed hands, to supersede the /actual/ votes of individuals in states who were against it - they used big city liberal's numbers against what people /actually/ wanted to be acceptable in their communities. While I'm pro-choice, for legalization, AND an SSM supporter, I fully recognize that putting it in the hands of the Fed is wrong on principle. It actually goes against my beliefs on the "right course" for SSM, "grassroots" movements on the local level to foster acceptance of SSM is a far, far more effective tool than ramming it down the unwilling throats of millions was, or ever will be. Now you have backlash from those folks who feel that /their/ opinions and beliefs mean nothing to the politicians and DC in general. They vote accordingly and will likely now be pushing to have SSM /criminalized/. Same thing goes with pot legalization frankly, before it was individual states deciding on their own if it should be legal or not, then the Feds came in and /forced/ it against the will of (what I do believe is the majority) of the nation's actual wishes for decriminalization.

Feds suck at damn near everything they touch, that's all there is to it, giving them power to pick and chose our "legal rights" like abortion, SSM, and pot is fucking stupid.

It’s possible......but improbable. The court overwhelmingly moves iteratively and in line with existing precedent. It also overwhelmingly favors the expanding of rights over their restriction. I can’t think of the last time a constitutionally recognized right was rescinded.

So while its possible, it’s highly improbable. The slippery slope is likewise, highly improbable.

I'd actually argue that the Japanese internment during WWII would qualify as your "improbable" rescinding of Constitutional rights. That was a Fed move.

Hmmm there was a case up here in line with this general topic... wish I could remember the case name and/or year. Basically Alaska courts ruled, and I expect it was upheld since it's still the law, that Alaska could indeed require minors to get permission from their parents for an abortion. In that case Alaska protected parental rights that the Feds were trying to constrict. I think there's a number of other cases where Alaska has "expanded" rights, pot is one of them as it's "expanded" off privacy vs the feds war on drugs. Property rights... Hell yea, I guarantee you that there's a shit ton of Alaska vs EPA/BLM cases up here, though you'd have to research individual cases as I've not personally read up on any.

Honestly, the only two instances of Feds "expanding" rights I can even think of were/are SSM and abortion. Every other thing I can think of they were taking away legal/perceived rights...

I think the "slippery slope" is quite real, maybe you just don't feel it because it's generally gone "your way"? I mean, lets be intellectually honest here, the Feds basically legalized murder in the eyes of half the nation, that's fucking insane when you think about it. I'm not at all surprised to have allies in the "fuck the fed overreach" debate.
 
If states get away with disregarding federal law and continue to legalize pot at the state level, state legislatures can then arrest abortion providers if they enact state laws prohibiting abortion. The Fed be damned.
Pothead lefties better watch out for what they wish for.

News flash- the legalization, or decriminalization of pot crosses party lines.
Poll: Growing number of Americans support marijuana legalization, including Republicans
A record high number of respondents to a Gallup poll released Wednesday said they support the legalization of marijuana, including more than half of Republicans polled.


then the remedy is to change the federal law
 
Right's are somewhat "flippant" in this nation because of Federal overreach [admittedly my opinion.] To example, nearly 40 years ago, the Alaska supreme court ruled that an adult’s right to use and possess a small amount of pot for personal use was protected under the Alaska constitution’s right to privacy. The Feds came in and told us that /our/ courts opinion of what was a "right" was meaningless to them. Then they applied the thumbscrews and extorted us to change the Alaska Constitution (which ratified personal privacy in owning small amounts of pot.)


So sure, abortion and marriage are considered "rights" by the supreme courts rulings at the moment, but that doesn't mean those /opinions/ won't change. It also means that abortion and marriage are merely "legal rights."

They may change. But the court rarely withdrawals rights. It usually expands them. And In Predicting legal outcomees, the only reliable predictive indicators are the the law, case law and court rulings that do exist.

Not may exist.

That might be, but the end result is that your implication that abortion and ssm are "rights" in the same context that gun ownership is a right is a bit flawed. They are presently "legal" rights, but they can be made "not rights" at any point in time - it all depends on who's sitting in the top bench seats frankly.

It's actually "safer" or "better" to have /states/ decide "legal" rights than Feds, because if you haven't noticed DC is a "shithole" and don't give a flying rats ass about anyone, they only care about getting your vote - by any lie, deception, or bullshit necessary. A state politician can't get away with that as easily because residents naturally pay attention to their local politics more than national.

It's exactly why Dem's put abortion and SSM in Fed hands, to supersede the /actual/ votes of individuals in states who were against it - they used big city liberal's numbers against what people /actually/ wanted to be acceptable in their communities. While I'm pro-choice, for legalization, AND an SSM supporter, I fully recognize that putting it in the hands of the Fed is wrong on principle. It actually goes against my beliefs on the "right course" for SSM, "grassroots" movements on the local level to foster acceptance of SSM is a far, far more effective tool than ramming it down the unwilling throats of millions was, or ever will be. Now you have backlash from those folks who feel that /their/ opinions and beliefs mean nothing to the politicians and DC in general. They vote accordingly and will likely now be pushing to have SSM /criminalized/. Same thing goes with pot legalization frankly, before it was individual states deciding on their own if it should be legal or not, then the Feds came in and /forced/ it against the will of (what I do believe is the majority) of the nation's actual wishes for decriminalization.

Feds suck at damn near everything they touch, that's all there is to it, giving them power to pick and chose our "legal rights" like abortion, SSM, and pot is fucking stupid.

It’s possible......but improbable. The court overwhelmingly moves iteratively and in line with existing precedent. It also overwhelmingly favors the expanding of rights over their restriction. I can’t think of the last time a constitutionally recognized right was rescinded.

So while its possible, it’s highly improbable. The slippery slope is likewise, highly improbable.

I'd actually argue that the Japanese internment during WWII would qualify as your "improbable" rescinding of Constitutional rights. That was a Fed move.

Then you have to go back almost 70 years for an example and even that was temporary. And that was in the middle of a massive war. Demonstrating my point of how rare it is to occur....and how extreme the conditions must be for it to happen.

We have nothing remotely as extreme regarding abortion or marriage here. Pot laws certainly don't qualify.
 
Right's are somewhat "flippant" in this nation because of Federal overreach [admittedly my opinion.] To example, nearly 40 years ago, the Alaska supreme court ruled that an adult’s right to use and possess a small amount of pot for personal use was protected under the Alaska constitution’s right to privacy. The Feds came in and told us that /our/ courts opinion of what was a "right" was meaningless to them. Then they applied the thumbscrews and extorted us to change the Alaska Constitution (which ratified personal privacy in owning small amounts of pot.)


So sure, abortion and marriage are considered "rights" by the supreme courts rulings at the moment, but that doesn't mean those /opinions/ won't change. It also means that abortion and marriage are merely "legal rights."

They may change. But the court rarely withdrawals rights. It usually expands them. And In Predicting legal outcomees, the only reliable predictive indicators are the the law, case law and court rulings that do exist.

Not may exist.

That might be, but the end result is that your implication that abortion and ssm are "rights" in the same context that gun ownership is a right is a bit flawed. They are presently "legal" rights, but they can be made "not rights" at any point in time - it all depends on who's sitting in the top bench seats frankly.

It's actually "safer" or "better" to have /states/ decide "legal" rights than Feds, because if you haven't noticed DC is a "shithole" and don't give a flying rats ass about anyone, they only care about getting your vote - by any lie, deception, or bullshit necessary. A state politician can't get away with that as easily because residents naturally pay attention to their local politics more than national.

It's exactly why Dem's put abortion and SSM in Fed hands, to supersede the /actual/ votes of individuals in states who were against it - they used big city liberal's numbers against what people /actually/ wanted to be acceptable in their communities. While I'm pro-choice, for legalization, AND an SSM supporter, I fully recognize that putting it in the hands of the Fed is wrong on principle. It actually goes against my beliefs on the "right course" for SSM, "grassroots" movements on the local level to foster acceptance of SSM is a far, far more effective tool than ramming it down the unwilling throats of millions was, or ever will be. Now you have backlash from those folks who feel that /their/ opinions and beliefs mean nothing to the politicians and DC in general. They vote accordingly and will likely now be pushing to have SSM /criminalized/. Same thing goes with pot legalization frankly, before it was individual states deciding on their own if it should be legal or not, then the Feds came in and /forced/ it against the will of (what I do believe is the majority) of the nation's actual wishes for decriminalization.

Feds suck at damn near everything they touch, that's all there is to it, giving them power to pick and chose our "legal rights" like abortion, SSM, and pot is fucking stupid.

It’s possible......but improbable. The court overwhelmingly moves iteratively and in line with existing precedent. It also overwhelmingly favors the expanding of rights over their restriction. I can’t think of the last time a constitutionally recognized right was rescinded.

So while its possible, it’s highly improbable. The slippery slope is likewise, highly improbable.

I'd actually argue that the Japanese internment during WWII would qualify as your "improbable" rescinding of Constitutional rights. That was a Fed move.

Then you have to go back almost 70 years for an example and even that was temporary. And that was in the middle of a massive war. Demonstrating my point of how rare it is to occur....and how extreme the conditions must be for it to happen.

We have nothing remotely as extreme regarding abortion or marriage here. Pot laws certainly don't qualify.

"Here" as in your state? Which is? Again, maybe you don't notice it because the Feds tend to rule "your way" - they constrict our rights [Alaska,] both individual and "state," all the damn time... I think Alaska has been in battle with the Feds pretty much since the beginning, since we became a state, and really even before then - we were in contention with the feds over shit like forcing all of our imports and exports to go through [a US port] San Fran and Seattle - costing us around twice as much for everything.

Maybe it's just how we, you and I, were raised; were you raised believing the Feds had your best interest in mind, or that they knew best? I was raised the opposite, both by my mother, and my friends up here, that the Feds were constantly causing us problems. ~shrug~
 
If states get away with disregarding federal law and continue to legalize pot at the state level, state legislatures can then arrest abortion providers if they enact state laws prohibiting abortion. The Fed be damned.
Pothead lefties better watch out for what they wish for.

News flash- the legalization, or decriminalization of pot crosses party lines.
Poll: Growing number of Americans support marijuana legalization, including Republicans
A record high number of respondents to a Gallup poll released Wednesday said they support the legalization of marijuana, including more than half of Republicans polled.
Did I say anything about this being about democrat conservatives only?
 
If states get away with disregarding federal law and continue to legalize pot at the state level, state legislatures can then arrest abortion providers if they enact state laws prohibiting abortion. The Fed be damned.
Pothead lefties better watch out for what they wish for.

News flash- the legalization, or decriminalization of pot crosses party lines.
Poll: Growing number of Americans support marijuana legalization, including Republicans
A record high number of respondents to a Gallup poll released Wednesday said they support the legalization of marijuana, including more than half of Republicans polled.


then the remedy is to change the federal law
Which is exactly what the anti-abortion people want.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top